Urban Schools

Abstract

Addressing the seemingly perpetual turbulent landscape of urban schools, the role that elementary educators and teacher educators can play in reversing negative trends and trajectories is considered. Three urban education journals were examined over a 5-year period (2005-2010) to determine the emphasis on elementary students or schools. Of the 429 articles, only 8% focused on the elementary years. Schools and teacher education programs that are willing to learn from existing successful models and to straightforwardly and vigilantly address endemic racism in policies and practices offer the most hope for transforming urban schools. Collaborative grassroots efforts are recommended.

Keywords

race elementary schools early childhood cultural responsiveness social diversity urban culturally relevant pedagogy teacher education

Once upon a time, it was proclaimed that African Americans were incapable of performing well in what were deemed elite sporting activities such as boxing, golfing, quarterbacking, playing tennis, and ice skating. By and by, these myths were dispelled. In academic circles, both historically and presently, the dominant narrative suggests that African American and other culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) urban youth cannot learn and that there is something inherently wrong with them that prevents them from performing at parity with White and nonurban youth. Just as African Americans have defied the negative proclamations by giving the world great athletes such as Joe Louis, Tiger Woods, and Venus and Serena Williams, in academics and many other fields, urban youth have excelled and continue to do so—though not on a grand scale. Yet because of enduring, endemic, and generative racism, the tale of urban schools has not been a “happily ever after” storyline, and the journey to reverse this current trajectory of low academic performance will include both successes and nonsuccesses.

In elementary schools—especially in preschool through third grade, it is customary to begin stories with “once upon a time” and end with “happily ever after.” Even though we recognize the complexities involved in school reform, teacher educators often envision riding into urban school settings on high horses, sprinkling a little dialogic professional development and hope the school will flourish. This, however, is not a reality, and it probably should not be an expectation. The nature of transforming schools is convoluted and often yields inconclusive, uneven, or mixed results. Unlike early childhood fairytales, the endings of these “stories” are undetermined. Sadly, urban schools have become notorious for their “nonvictorious” narratives.

The basic premise of this article is that the negative legacies bequeathed to urban schools can be reversed and rejected via transformational approaches that focus on thoughtful and sustained structural changes which confront hidden racism in schools and teacher education programs. Propelled in part by a sense of moral and professional outrage regarding the perpetual inequities in urban schools, this article is guided by four critical questions surrounding teaching in elementary urban schools: (a) What is the current landscape for urban schools? (b) What role might the elementary schools play in transforming urban schools? (c) What are components of effective urban elementary schools? and (d) Can we envision teaching in urban schools as exhilarating and rewarding versus dreadful and foreboding? These questions are subtextual and will be addressed indirectly. Reflecting on contemporary notions regarding the social and educational difficulties faced in urban schools and borrowing from Dubois’ timeless question, “How does it feel to be a problem?” (Dubois, 1903/1989, p. 2), a subtext of this article is, “Can we interrupt and change persistent storylines which position urban schools and students as problematic?” This transformation will require a concerted effort in schools and teacher education programs to shift the gaze from viewing urban students as problematic to seeing their possibilities. To do this, school and university educators will need to substantively examine ways to address the cumulative hegemonic reinforcements that are inherent in their policies and practices.

Although the issues addressed in this article are not unique to elementary schools, they are an essential starting point because young children are very impressionable and it may indeed be possible to ward off some of the cumulative, counterproductive effects of urban schooling which are often compounded over time (Noguera, 2001). This article is not intended to suggest quick fixes but proposes to emphasize the continuous need to illuminate counterhegemonic examples of teachers, classrooms, and schools which undermine prevailing dominant, negative narratives about urban youth.

A substantial number of published works, conferences, and the like indicate promising practices for urban schools—albeit isolated and sporadic (Lewis, James, Hancock, & Hill-Jackson, 2008; Morris, 2004). However, as a field, we have been unsuccessful in sustaining and extrapolating such efforts. Before the reader gets too excited by the anticipation that this article will offer the solution for doing so, let me hasten to say that this is not my intent. Guided by a critical race theoretical framework, the article builds on the belief that racism is endemic and permanent in society—and consequently in education (Bell, 1992). Therefore, it stands to reason that urban schools which enroll large numbers of students of color will likely remain marginalized indefinitely in the total scheme of education. This does not imply that educators should be complacent and, thereby, complicit in this process. Rather, realizing the enormity and deeply ingrained nature of racism, we must vigilantly and aggressively provide high visibility of successful urban school models to continuously interrupt the cycle of racism as much and as often as possible. Although complete eradication of the disparities is not likely, they can be greatly reduced. It would be presumptuous to think that a single author or article can address all of the issues surrounding this massive task of transforming urban schools that has to be attacked on both school and societal levels. It is clear though that we need to amplify our thinking about ways to transform, rethink, and move beyond conventional school reform trajectories (e.g., task forces, conferences, strategic plans, special issues of journals, books) if we truly want different, more favorable academic and social outcomes for urban youth. As Asa Hilliard (1991) continuously pointed out, it is a question of whether collectively, as educators and society, we have the will and vision to educate all children. Typically, targeted emphasis on urban schooling has been intermittent and lukewarm and either fizzles out or is displaced by the latest trend or iteration of a previous issue. One of the jokes that I have heard among educators reflecting on the continual flow of reform efforts is that if the reforms ever work, we—as educational researchers—will have nothing to research or write about. So what will happen if the reforms progress beyond the theoretical level and actually work to reverse current trends in urban schools? As the process of schooling by definition and nature should be an ongoing work in progress, there would be much to write about as successful models are tweaked and evolve in response to ever-changing student demographics.

I begin the discussion by providing a historical and contemporary status and landscape of urban schools which includes definitions and demographics. Here I present the findings from a review of publications in urban education journals to make a case that the elementary urban focus is limited in the current academic literature. Then, I emphasize the role of elementary schools in the transformation of urban school patterns and the importance of culturally relevant pedagogy as an approach to meeting the educational needs of urban students. I focus primarily on early childhood education (ECE; preschool through third grade) because these levels are foundational to what happens at later grades. Common misconceptions which are often held by ECE/elementary-level educators interfere with the broad implementation of proactive, empowering, and culturally relevant pedagogies in urban elementary schools (and which contribute to subsequent cumulative problems in middle and high schools) are discussed. Next, I share a few brief, yet hopeful, examples of exemplars in urban elementary schools and an example at the university level which can serve as models of promising practices. In these settings, educators hold a positive and affirming view of urban students and schools. I call attention to the role of teacher educators and programs in the process of preparing preservice and in-service teachers to effectively teach urban youth and reverse existing trends and images of urban schools. I share changes made in the Early Childhood Education program at my university as an example. I propose that teaching in urban settings should be an ethical priority for educators. Finally, I present practical implications based on the understanding that both educational and political strategies must be emphasized and employed if urban schools are to be successful (Noguera, 2001).

Historical and Contemporary Status of Urban Schools

This movie (“Lean on Me”) was about a High school, but the issues that these students were dealing with had been with them all of their lives. (An) (i)mportant point I found myself wondering how they were even able to make it (in) high school if they couldn’t read. I believe that issues . . . should be addressed in elementary school, if not before then. These students were obviously being passed along even though they were not learning. Interventions should have been in place to help these students then.

Jamie Parrish, ECE student enrolled in undergraduate course at the University of South Carolina, Spring 2011 (used with permission).

The mention of urban schools often conjures up deeply etched images of graffiti, rundown facilities, overcrowding, disorderly conduct, dangerous corridors, drug dealers, low or no teacher expectations, uninvolved parents, poor test scores, high poverty levels, students of color, and a host of other negative imagery. Prevailing pessimistic images of urban schools such as the one depicted in the archetypal movie, Lean on Me (1989), make it difficult to imagine urban schools otherwise. Lean on Me features Eastside High School which has morphed from being a high performing, majority White school of choice to an “urban school.” To reify the sense of total chaos, an early scene from this iconic movie opens with the song, Welcome to the Jungle (Guns ‘N Roses), playing ominously in the background as teachers and students in the crowded, loud, and unruly corridor are being intimidated by “miscreants”—most of whom are African American. Indeed, because the majority of African and Latino American students are enrolled in urban schools (Lewis et al., 2008; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-08b), the term urban is frequently narrowly used as a synonym and a euphemism to refer to students of color (Buendia, 2011). In the movie, Joe Clark, the school’s new principal, almost single-handedly transforms the school to an orderly setting in which students are able to finally pass the state achievement test.

Despite the movie’s shortcomings, the timelessness and durability of Lean on Me speaks to the reality that it is likely that the movie will continue to be relevant for decades to come given that school reforms have done little to change the larger landscape of urban schools. The lack of change over time in the racially dichotomous student achievement outcomes conveys the perception that this trend is normal, natural, stable, fixed, and unchangeable (Buendia, 2011; Noguera, 2001). Amid constant attention, extensive documentation, and ambitiously named educational policies and movements (e.g., A Nation At Risk, Goals 2000; No Child Left Behind), educational disparities between CLD and White students remains largely unchanged over the four decades of massive standardized testing and evaluations (Grigg, Donahue, & Dion, 2007). Given the contemporary landscape, it is difficult to foresee dramatic and pervasive changes. Predictably, each year when academic performance measures and other social indices are reported nationally, the trends will remain unless deep structural changes are made. Although there is certainly a lot of energy, pomp, and circumstance surrounding urban schools, can we really envision what urban schools might look like if any of the school reforms actually worked?

The intent of invoking the more than two-decade-old movie, Lean on Me, is not to critique the film’s negative and stereotypical portrayal of the students or principal or the erroneous belief that one person can transform a school but to make the point that this depiction of urban schools is a central theme that is indelibly imprinted in the minds of the public and in contemporary educational circles. Sadly, the ominous depiction of urban schools prevails despite counterstories such as Morris (2004) which provide glimmers of hope.

Sociopolitically, the term urban is frequently codified to refer to students of color who are often unruly, poor, and lack academic skills (Watson, Charner-Laird, Kirkpatrick, Szczesiul, & Gordon, 2006). The nature of existing power relationships between White people and people of color in the United States is inherently signified in the term urban. Whether referred to as “urban,” “inner-city,” or other supposedly euphemistic terminology, connotations of “disadvantaged” and “deficit” are suggested. The constant coupling of CLD students with negative imagery of urban schools not only confounds issues of race, socioeconomic status, and student performance but also interferes with the ability of educators and the public to realistically envision reversing this predicament in a sustained manner on a large scale (Buendia, 2011). Consequently, the focus on the preparation and retention of effective teachers for urban schools has resulted in a proliferation of information and responses from a wide variety of sources (e.g., academic articles, educational journals, university programs, courses, task forces, conferences, documentaries, governmental and other reports). As shown in Table 1, Internet searches on the topic of urban schooling yield a staggering amount of information (ranging from approximately 4 million to 65 million hits on the Google search engine and 404 to nearly 29,000 on ERIC).

Table 1.

Number of Hits/Publications Yielded by Google and ERIC Searches on Urban Education

Keywords	Google search engine	Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)
Urban schools	About 24,200,000 results	23,813
Urban elementary schools	58,700,000 results	12,639
Urban middle schools	65,400,000 results	2,709
Urban high schools	34,200,000 results	8,938
Urban education universities	16,000,000 results	2,193
Urban education conferences	4,010,000 results	404

Over the past few decades, the storylines of much of this voluminous and multimodal information on urban schools has captured both the dismal backdrop describing the pervasive challenges and realities of many urban schools alongside accounts of hope and possibilities (Buendia, 2011; Edmonds, 1979; Lewis et al., 2008). Osher and Fleischman (2005) explained,

Urban schools often face such challenges as high student poverty and mobility rates, large numbers of English language learners, and unsafe neighborhoods. Yet even in the face of these challenges, many urban schools provide a high-quality education and produce high-achieving students. (p. 84)

As the next two quotes illustrate, the mantra, urban schools are problematic, overshadows the hope, and implies that there remains a need for ongoing and pervasive counternarratives and evidence of positive urban schools.

Chung (2011) wrote,

Urban schools are at an extreme disadvantage, especially to the children that [sic] are attending these schools. Inequalities in education exist from the textbooks provided to the teacher qualifications which in turn affects the quality of education that inner-city children are receiving. Neighborhoods are being segregated by social class and the impoverished population is not getting the same educational opportunities as the suburban population. This is a problem that must be investigated. (n.p.)

Similarly, Brown (2003) declared,

Classroom management in urban schools is more difficult than in rural or suburban schools because gaining students’ cooperation while ensuring their learning involves addressing students’ cultural, ethnic, social identity development, language, and safety needs as well as their academic growth. This is a considerable responsibility if not an impossibility. (pp. 277-278)

Both examples inadvertently evoke deficit and pathological views of urban schools and situate educators in a suburban–urban binary that must be overcome (Buendia, 2011). Given the backdrop of urban schools as undesirable, it is not a revelation to point out that nearly half of all new teachers in urban public schools quit within 5 years (Nieto, 2003); approximately 24% leave within the first 3 years (Kaiser, 2011). In a nationally represented sample of 641 new teachers, 63% expressed a need for information on teaching diverse students (National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality and Public Agenda, 2008). Not surprisingly, new and veteran teachers alike report that one of the key challenges that they face is the effective education of non-White students (Darling-Hammond, 2000; National Collaborative on Diversity in the Teaching Force, 2004; National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality and Public Agenda, 2008). Considering challenges faced by the increasing racial and ethnic diversity among students in P-12 schools and the accompanying decline in diversity among the population of teachers (U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2005), one of the major issue facing urban educational settings is transforming a predominately White teaching force into a cadre of practitioners who want to teach in urban schools and who are effective doing so (Lewis et al., 2008). Professional and accrediting organizations recognize the centrality of diversity in school curricula and instructional practices and acknowledge that many educators have not been adequately prepared to teach CLD populations. Indeed, there is evidence which indicates that effective teachers increase students’ academic performance regardless of students’ socioeconomic status, race, or location (Darling-Hammond, 2000).

The Urban Landscape

According to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2007-08a), there are nearly 26,000 urban schools in the United States, comprising 26% of all public elementary and secondary schools. Other schools fall into categories of suburban, town, or rural. Juxtaposing two diametrically different geologic types of schools—urban and suburban, it is unlikely that the contemporary teaching pool—mostly White (83%; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-08c), mostly female (76%; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-08d)—will readily seek to teach in urban schools. Even though students in both suburban and urban schools behave similarly in many ways (e.g., they have conflicts with classmates, forget to turn in homework, use profanity; Milner, 2010), experience has taught me that most preservice and in-service teachers prefer suburban school setting if given a choice. Indeed, educators often view and treat urban students in a pathological manner (Milner, 2010). Teachers tend to handle suburban students’ problems as if they are developing individuals; whereas, urban school students are often treated as if they are in prison (Ladson-Billings, 2011; Milner, 2010). Buendia (2011) suggested that differences between students from different geologic spaces (e.g., rural, suburban, urban) are imagined differences constructed by the pervasive and seemingly perpetual discourse that I have previously discussed.

A recent NCES survey of 9,800 public school teachers (P-12) corroborates that teachers tend to perceive that there is a higher likelihood of problems such as lack of parent involvement and student unpreparedness in urban schools versus in suburban, town, or rural schools (see Table 2; U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-08e). At every school level (elementary, middle, high), teachers consistently ranked urban schools as more problematic. Congruent with the line of reasoning that the elementary schools may offer more promise for change than middle or high schools (Noguera, 2001), primary teachers were less likely to perceive potential problems about students and their families than were middle and high school teachers. Notably, middle school teachers were 2.5 times more likely to expect apathy from their students than were primary teachers. High school teachers were nearly four times more likely to expect student apathy than primary teachers and three times more likely to expect tardiness (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007-08e). The case can be made that as students progress from elementary to middle and high school, the view that educators hold about them becomes more dismal. Essentially, even though all geologic types of schools have problems, deficit perspectives/outlooks continue to shade how urban settings and schools are viewed.

Table 2.

Percentage of Public School Teachers Who Reported Potential Problems as “Serious Problems” in Their Schools, by Type of Problem, Locale, and Grade-Level Taught: 2007-08

School level	Lack of parental involvement	Poverty	Students come to school unprepared to learn	Student apathy	Student tardiness
Primary
City/urban	24.0	34.4	27.8	9.0	10.6
Suburban	13.8	17.9	16.3	4.9	5.1
Town	18.9	29.2	22.2	7.3	5.4
Rural	11.0	18.4	13.8	5.2	3.2
Middle
City/urban	27.5	32.6	33.3	24.4	11.5
Suburban	15.0	12.8	18.4	12.7	4.2
Town	19.0	28.6	27.0	17.0	4.7
Rural	13.8	17.6	19.9	15.0	2.7
High
City/urban	35.4	31.5	41.6	35.4	30.2
Suburban	19.6	12.3	25.0	25.9	18.1
Town	22.9	23.5	30.2	28.1	13.6
Rural	20.7	20.5	27.6	27.8	10.5

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey, “Public Teacher Questionnaire,” 2007-08e.

Given the host of problems cited in the academic literature about urban schools and the views of educators regarding the appeal of teaching in urban settings, it stands to reason that teachers and students are mutually unsatisfied. For example, students in urban schools experience numerous issues such as (a) continuously low academic performance; (b) disproportionally high placements in special education; (c) high incidence of disciplinary actions, suspensions, and expulsions; (d) lack of access to high-quality teachers; (e) low-quality curriculum choices; (f) historical and contemporary devaluation—and subsequent internalization of this process; (g) low levels of motivation; (h) low teacher expectations; (i) irrelevant curriculum; (j) uninvolved, nonempowered, unorganized parent and community involvement; and (k) underfunded schools (Berry, 2008; Brown, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1999, 2011; Martin, 2007). Moreover, most urban schools have disproportionately high poverty rates, which, for reasons not inherent to the students themselves, compound an already complex situation. In addition to students and teachers as part of the urban equation, a host of other factors beyond the scope of this article contribute to the current status of urban schools—not the least being systemic racism and classism. Despite the tenuous status of urban schools, systemic educational reforms used to reverse current trends should be supportive and nonpunitive for teachers and students. Although examples of successful urban schools do exist (e.g., Morris, 2004), they are still viewed as anomalies.

At this juncture in time after decades of viewing urban schools from a crises perspective, it makes sense for educators and policy makers to pause and question, “How can we change the prevailing image and substance of urban schools from that of endemic nonsuccess to one of success?” While not intending to suggest a panacea or simple method of addressing this enormously complex issue, it may prove instructive to target elementary schools as a first step—particularly the early childhood years (preschool through third grade). As observed in earlier excerpt from Jamie’s journal entry on Lean on Me, elementary grades typically receive little attention in discussions about urban schools. A central premise of this article is that if elementary schools are successful teaching urban students, it is likely that subsequent disparities between nonurban and urban students can be greatly reduced in middle and high schools as the majority of students who enter middle school will possess the requisite academic and social skills needed to succeed and complete high school—assuming that middle and high schools also do their part to continue the patterns of success. This does not suggest that reforms currently at the middle and high school levels should cease in the meantime; however, they should enter into conversations with elementary feeder schools to jointly construct plans for long-term success of the students.

Urban Elementary Education

Elementary schools typically enroll students from preschool through fifth/sixth grade; thus, crossing two teacher preparation program areas (ECE and elementary education). Typically ECE covers preschool through third grade and overlaps with elementary which covers first through fifth/sixth grade.¹ Before discussing the focus on elementary schools in urban school literature, policies, and efforts, it is useful to understand common macro beliefs about how ECE is often perceived. In the education field, ECE has long struggled to be viewed as a serious and substantive period. ECE is distinct as a discipline in that many people hold the misperception that working with young children is whimsical. Indeed, many ECE teachers espouse that the reason they want to teach is that they love children and see them as being innocent. Others are attracted to ECE because they like the idea of being able to teach in a “fun” way and/or think that they will teach a minimal amount of content—e.g., math and science. Given such misperceptions of ECE, it is not uncommon for people (both within and outside of the ECE profession) to underestimate young children’s abilities and the critical role that ECE teachers play in long-term student outcomes—whether positive or negative. Indeed, a basic premise of this article is that the ECE years are foundational for what is possible during the middle and high school grades. That said, I turn my attention to looking at how much attention has been directed toward the ECE years in urban studies. As there is an overlap in ECE and elementary in schools, I focused on elementary schools which include both levels.

To begin my inquiry into the amount of focus that has been placed on elementary urban schooling, I reviewed articles over a 5-year period (2005-2010) in three of the top urban education journals (Urban Education, Education and Urban Society, and Urban Review).² The first two journals were selected because they were the only two education journals in the “Urban Studies” category rankings that appeared in the 2009 Journal Citation Reports. Urban Education is ranked 25th of 33 journals; Education and Urban Society ranked 28th. I also included Urban Review, even though it was not listed in the rankings. Yet it is a highly regarded journal in the field of urban education as evidenced by its editorial board and articles by well-know urban scholars who choose this journal as a publishing outlet. Also, the use of “urban” in the title was part of my decision. The appendix spells out the methodology that was used for the reviews.

My assumptions about the minimal focus on urban schools for the ECE and elementary grades were supported. If the number of publications in the three journals had been proportional in terms of coverage of the three school levels—elementary, middle, and high—and another category for “other levels” (e.g., teacher education without a designated school level), about 25% of the articles could be expected at each level. However, as seen on Table 3, only 8% of the articles that appeared in Urban Review over the 5-year period focused on the elementary years; in Urban Education and Education in Urban Society, it was 7% and 10%, respectively. The range of percentages for the number of articles published during the 5-year period was 0% to 18% for Urban Review, 3% to 13% for Urban Education, and 0% to 14% for Education and Urban Society. Of the 429 articles and other items published in the three journals over the 5-year period, only 8% of these focused on the elementary years. The years during which the three journals published the highest percentages of articles focusing on elementary schools were as follows: Urban Review—2006 with 18%; Urban Education—2008 with 13%; and Education and Urban Society—2008 and 2010 with 14% for both years.

Table 3.

Percentage of Articles Focusing on Elementary Schools in Top Three Journal Articles Between 2006-2010

	Year/number of elementary articles
	2006 (Vol. 38)		2007 (Vol. 39)		2008 (Vol. 40)		2009 (Vol. 41)		2010(Vol. 42)		Total/5 years
Journal: Urban Review	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	% elementary articles by issue
Issue 1	0	4	0	5	0	7	0	7	1	3	1	26	4
Issue 2	1	3	0	6	0	4	0	5	0	5	1	23	4
Issue 3	0	3	0	5	0	4	0	4	0	6	0	22	0
Issue 4	2	1	1	4	0	4	1	4	2	5	6	18	25
Issue 5	0	3	0	4	0	5	1	5	1	5	2	22	8
Total/5 years	3	14	1	24	0	24	2	25	4	24	10	111	8
Annual percentage	18		4		0		7		14		8
	Year/number of ECE articles
	2006 (Vol. 41)		2007 (Vol. 42)		2008 (Vol. 43)		2009 (Vol. 44)		2010 (Vol. 45)		Total/5 years
Journal: Urban Education	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	% elementary articles by issue
Issue 1	1	5	0	7	0	5	1	6	0	5	2	28	7
Issue 2	0	4	0	5	3	4	0	5	1	5	4	23	15
Issue 3	1	4	0	5	2	6	0	7	0	7	3	29	9
Issue 4	0	6	2	4	0	5	0	7	0	7	2	29	6
Issue 5	0	5	1	7	0	7	0	6	1	7	2	32	6
Issue 6	0	7	0	7	0	6	0	5	0	6	0	31	0
Total/5 years	2	31	3	35	5	33	1	36	2	37	13	172	7
Annual percentage	6		8		13		3		5		7
	Year/number of ECE articles
	2006 (Vol. 38)		2007 (Vol. 39)		2008 (Vol. 40)		2009 (Vol. 41)		2010 (Vol. 42)		Total/5 years
	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other	Elementary	Other
Journal: Education and Urban Society^a	2005	2005	2006	2006	2007	2007	2008	2008	2009	2009			% elementary articles by issue
Issue 1			0	8	0	6	0	7	1	5	1	26	4
Issue 2	1	6	0	6	1	7	0	5	1	4	3	28	10
Issue 3	0	6	0	6	2	3	0	6	1	5	3	26	10
Issue 4	1	5	0	6	1	4	0	5	1	5	3	25	11
Issue 5					1	5	0	6	0	6	1	17	6
Issue 6					0	5	2	3	1	4	3	12	20
Total/5 years	2	17	0	26	5	30	2	25	4	24	13	122	10
Annual percentage	29		0		17		8		17		10

The first issue, in every volume, includes the previous year. Education and Urban Society ceased this method in January 2011.

Examining the trends across the years for the three journals, there were many issues in which no articles focused on the elementary years. For Urban Review, there were a total of 18 (of 25) issues in which no articles on elementary appeared; for Urban Education and Education and Urban Society, there were 22 (of 30) issues and 12 (of 25) issues, respectively. The percentages of issues with no elementary issues were 72% for Urban Review, 73% for Urban Education, and 48% for Education and Urban Society. Based on the years in which no articles on the elementary years appeared, this trend does not indicate that any of the journals are making concerted efforts to include this focus (i.e., the number of elementary articles did not increase over time or during recent years). This trend could easily be changed by intentionally issuing calls for manuscripts which focus on the elementary years and structuring the journals so that at least one article per issue focuses on the elementary years.

These findings indicate that the conditions are ripe for further emphasis and discussion on early childhood and elementary urban educational issues. It should be noted that this particular inquiry extended 2 years beyond the ECE years—up to fifth grade. It is likely that the percentages would have been even lower had the cutoff been third grade (the upper limit of the ECE years).

These findings do not imply that these journals are the only outlets for writing about urban studies or that other education journals have not focused on urban schools at the elementary level because this examination focused only on journals that were most prominent in the area of urban education. Yet my three decades of teaching ECE in higher education support this finding since most ECE teachers, journals, and conferences have little to no focus on urban youth. Reasons for the lack of focus on “urban” issues will be discussed in subsequent sections.

One rationale for teaching during the early childhood years is that there is an opportunity to teach students while they are impressionable as opposed to the later years when the cumulative effects of nonsuccess are more difficult to reverse and erase. If we agree that it is worthwhile to at least think about focusing on elementary schools, it would be useful to reflect on how effective urban elementary schools might look. It is also worth thinking about how urban elementary schools might be different than middle or high schools. Would the forecast look more hopeful at that point? Educators wishing to interrupt the enduring cycle of dystopia (negative vision) for urban children may find that comprehensively conceived culturally relevant teaching is a promising possibility (Milner, 2011). At the classroom level at least, there is evidence to suggest that culturally relevant pedagogy can dismantle the systemic racism which undergirds many instructional, curriculum, disciplinary policies that serve to continuously revive and recycle the contemporary and historical trends in urban schools (Boutte & Hill, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1994/2009; Milner, 2010, 2011).

Culturally Relevant Pedagogy

Drawing from Martin’s (2007) framework, three types of knowledge or skills are needed to effectively teach urban students (at the ECE or other levels) effectively: (a) deep content knowledge; (b) strong pedagogical content knowledge; and (c) well-conceived and delivered culturally relevant pedagogy. The first two have been written about extensively and are not the focus here. An extensive body of literature suggests that although there have been more than two and a half decades of research and theorizing on preparing teachers to work with diverse students, most have not moved beyond superficial coverage of multicultural education in a manner which would prepare educators to effectively teach in urban settings (Ladson-Billings, 1999; Watson et al., 2006). Culturally relevant pedagogy as conceived below offers promise for more effectively preparing teachers to teach in urban settings.

Culturally relevant pedagogy focuses on (a) academic excellence that is not based on cultural deficit models of school failure; (b) cultural competence which locates excellence within the context of the students’ community and cultural identities; and (c) critical consciousness which challenges inequitable school and societal structures (Ladson-Billings, 2002). Each of these will be discussed in turn.

Academic excellence that is not based on cultural deficit models of school failure

The construct of culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) is often misinterpreted as a narrow focus on the cultural affirmation of CLD students. Unquestioningly, in CRP classrooms, students’ cultures are affirmed (as is currently the norm for White students’ cultures in most schools). However, a central goal of CRP is academic excellence. Unlike most classrooms, culturally relevant classrooms do not devalue students’ cultural funds of knowledge and worldviews. Rather, students’ learning is placed in a relevant context while students also become more proficient at understanding their cultures.

An often-cited reason that educators do not demand academic excellence from urban students is that they have unknowingly ingested the abundant deficit messages about students and their families and communities (Ladson-Billings, 2002; Milner, 2008b; Morris, 2004; Picower, 2009; Volk & Long, 2005). I should note that the emphasis on the role of educators does not negate students’ or families’ responsibilities. However, as educators, the goal is to focus on the space over which we have control over—our classrooms, schools, and universities. Hence, it is crucial for educators to examine unarticulated—even unknown—assumptions that are being held (Morris, 2004). As noted by Watson et al. (2006), educators who intend to help their students but characterize them as unmotivated and underskilled are actually responding to stereotypes which can easily become self-fulfilling prophecies. Hence, they are likely to reinforce inequitable access to quality instruction and classes.

It should be stressed that educators do not intentionally or consciously view urban students from a deficit perspective. Often, White teachers’ hegemonic understandings of urban schools in concert with being reared in and living in hypersegregated White communities contribute to deficit constructions of urban schools (Earick, 2008; Picower, 2009). Because of internalized oppression by people of color, deficit perceptions of urban youth may also be held by teachers of color as well.

Cultural competence which locates excellence within the context of the students’ communities and cultural identities

A basic premise of culturally relevant pedagogy is that educators need sufficient in-depth understanding of students’ cultural backgrounds to make learning meaningful and transformative as mainstream methods of acquiring school competencies do not offer universally applicable models of development (Boutte, 2002, Boutte & Hill, 2006; Heath, 1982/1992; King, 1994: Perry, Steele, & Hilliard, 2003). One probable reason for the lack of ECE and elementary focus on urban schools is that much of the ECE field is based on a “one size fits all” model. That is, there is a tendency to focus on “universalistic” developmental levels with little attention to substantive differences across cultural contexts (Lee, 2008; Orellana & D’Warte, 2010; Swadener & Cannella, 2007). Hence, what is considered within the “normal” range of development is often limited to Eurocentric norms about development (Orellana & D’Warte, 2010).

The ECE and elementary years are particularly important for countering negative societal messages about people of color, urban settings, and people living in poverty. By the time children who live in the United States and other Western countries reach age 5, they have typically watched 5,000 hr of television (Peterson, 2007) and have been bombarded with the negative imagery and ideologies about nonmainstream groups in society (Christensen, 2007). Once children enter school, the valuation of European and mainstream ways of life is further validated by books and curricula (Jackson & Boutte, 2009). Hence, without conscious efforts to counter pervasive negative messages, many students of color may unknowingly internalize prevailing negative messages about their capabilities (Perry, 2003).

In many schools, affirmation of students of color’s cultures is solely missing. Yet to excel, students need to know that teachers understand and respect them. This means that it will be necessary for educators to expand what they notice, measure, and study (Orellana & D’Warte, 2010) rather than narrowly defining competence. For example, studying urban contexts outside the classroom and routine daily practices that children and family engage in (Lee, 2008) may yield funds of knowledge (repositories of knowledge that is accumulated through people’s lived experiences; Moll, 2001) that can be used as a bridge to teach urban students. When educators tap these rich funds of knowledge, it will become apparent that urban students possess many strengths that are overlooked by conventional assessments. In many urban classrooms, children’s worldviews and cultures are not validated but are disregarded and excluded. Once educators recognize that students and their communities can be viewed as sources of information and wisdom, they can transform their classroom into affirming spaces which legitimize and build on students’ cultures.

In most schools, CLD students are fed steady diets of stereotypical and culturally invasive literature and curricula and often do not see themselves positively and consistently represented in books or curricular materials (Jackson & Boutte, 2009). Hence, by design or default, their cultures are positioned on the periphery of normal behavior and perspectives. Educators who want to counter inequities should provide thoughtful, ongoing instruction and curricula because children learn covert and overt messages from many sources including literature, television, home, and peers (Boutte, 2008).

Critical consciousness which challenges inequitable school and societal structures

The critical consciousness/sociopolitical dimension of culturally relevant pedagogy offers a critique to the view that content knowledge and content pedagogical knowledge are neutral and “objective.” In culturally relevant classrooms, the cultural fingerprints of content knowledge, curriculum, and instruction are made evident, critiqued, deconstructed, and reconstructed (Boutte, Kelly-Jackson, & Johnson, 2010). From a critically conscious perspective, culturally relevant pedagogy assumes that the way teachers teach profoundly impacts students’ perceptions of the content of the curriculum (Ladson-Billings, 1994/2009)—even in the ECE and elementary grades (Boutte, 2008).

Although issues related to race and racism are inextricably tied to urban education, many ECE and elementary educators have been reluctant to venture into this domain (Boutte, Lopez-Robertson, & Costello, 2011). A particularly pronounced assertion among ECE educators is that discussions about racism and other equity issues are too advanced and complex for young, “innocent” children to understand (Boutte et al., 2011). It is better, some scholars believe, to wait until children are older to discuss such issues. The assumption is that homes, communities, schools, and society are “neutral” spaces absent of racist overtones and actions. To the contrary, research clearly demonstrates that young children are neither naïve nor colorblind and that racial relationships are important aspects of their social worlds (Earick, 2008). Children quickly learn the racial identities and racially related roles that they see played out in the larger society (Van Ausdale & Feagin, 2001). Therefore, if young children are not provided with opportunities to begin formulating and questioning their initial understandings, uninterrupted, stereotypes about themselves and others are likely to be magnified over time (Boutte, 2008; Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010; Earick, 2008).

Many ECE and elementary teachers hold the pervasive belief that young children are colorblind and hence avoid addressing racial issues. Paradoxically, even in preschool, young children are astute at analyzing racial dynamics such as who is valued and who is not (Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010; Pelo, 2008). Many CLD children quickly learn that school is not culturally relevant and affirming to them. Many of the social and academic trends such as low levels of motivation among CLD students that are apparent in middle and high school had their roots in the elementary grades. By the time they reach middle school, many urban children have likely learned that school is not a place for them and have dropped out mentally and emotionally.

What is essential in early childhood and other classrooms is to provide opportunities for children to learn to “read the world.” That is, teachers should help children question the culture and values being promoted in the classroom and society. Otherwise, teachers socialize their students to accept the uneven power relationships of our society along lines of race, class, gender, and ability (Segura-Mora, 2008). This calls for ongoing conversations and antiracist activities rather than brief, one-time events which can inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and colorblindness. To move beyond superficial coverage, discussions about racism should be integrated into existing curriculum and instruction (Boutte et al., 2011). Countering racism and other forms of discrimination should involve thoughtful, continuous efforts from several sources because children learn covert and overt messages from many places including television, home, literature, and peers (Boutte, Hopkins, & Waklatsi, 2008; Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010). Depending on the discourse and framework used, it can be empowering or constraining for both the teacher and children. That is, the approach used can either provide children with the necessary skill set and strategies or reinforce prejudices and biases, thus limiting children’s development. Sociopolitically, teachers should engage children in discussions of issues of power and privilege in a manner that makes the information relevant and accessible to children.

Three processes will be useful to ECE and elementary educators wishing to advance the sociopolitical dimension of CRP: teacher’s reflections on his or her perceptions about race, building a relationship with children, and engaging children in informed conversations (Boutte et al., 2011). Importantly, educators will need to become conversant with historical, social, political, and economic forces in the United States (Morris, 2004). In addition, they need to understand how their life experiences, schooling, and their current school settings shape their current teaching (Watson et al., 2006).

Examples of Effective Urban Elementary Schools

Dr. Ronald Edmonds, then director of the Center for Urban Studies at Harvard University and founder of effective schools movement, posed a resoundingly haunting question that should be revisited as we think about the stagnant progress of urban schools today:

How many effective schools would you have to see to be persuaded of the educability of . . . children? If your answer is more than one, then I submit that you have reasons of your own for preferring to believe that pupil performance derives from family background instead of school response to family background. (Edmonds, 1979, pp. 22-23)

There are a significant number of examples of sociopolitically informed teaching (teaching which gives attention to social and political inequalities between social groups) which demonstrate how to make individual and structural changes in ECE classrooms and schools in the existing academic literature (e.g., Cowhey, 2006; Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010; Pelo, 2008).

Although sporadic and not widely documented and circulated, Education Trust (2011) also continually documents examples of schools that are successful in reducing and alleviating academic gaps in public school settings—(e.g., Atlanta, Georgia; Louisville, Kentucky; Aldine, Texas; Raleigh, North Carolina; Boston Public Schools; Long Beach, California; South Carolina). These substantive efforts aimed at improving urban schools do not narrowly define success by test scores although they certainly are directed toward increasing the overall academic performance and long-term success of urban youth.

Exemplars of urban schools succeeding despite incredible odds are encouraging and provide insights into particular teacher competencies that are effective. For instance, Morris’ (2004) account of his 3-year involvement with African American, low-income urban elementary schools—one in St. Louis, Missouri and the other in Atlanta, Georgia—represent an example of this. Teachers in both schools used CRP (not necessarily labeled as such) to effectively teach the urban students. Despite racial and social class inequalities which undermined their schools, the educators and family members collectively worked to meet the children’s social and educational needs. Morris concluded that the interpersonal relationships between the teachers and families as well as the teachers’ valuing and building on African American culture were essential elements of the schools’ success over time. Unlike many educators who teach urban youth, teachers in both schools were connected—culturally, psychologically, and proximally—to the children in the school. Hence, they understood the children’s lives beyond school. Distinct from many urban schools, most of the teachers remained at the school and were highly committed to the children’s academic and social achievements. Such examples represent only a preview of the large range of promising possibilities in urban schools. These efforts should be amplified and emulated.

Despite an incredibly pessimistic backdrop regarding student outcomes in urban communities, there are also substantive attempts by private programs to fundamentally reverse the negative trends. Two notable examples which may be instructive for elementary educators are The Harlem Children’s Zone and The Children’s Defense Fund’s Freedom Schools. Although I will not expound on these two efforts here, both, like Morris (2004), are grassroots efforts which involve educators who are “servant leaders” who are committed to making a difference in the lives of children who are marginalized. Not only can elementary schools learn from such laudable undertakings but teacher education programs also need to explore ways to better prepare educators to meet the needs of urban students.

The Role and Possibilities of Teacher Education Programs

Teacher education programs serve an important role in the process of transforming views of urban schools from dreadful to desirable (Quartz & the TEP Research Group, 2003). However, close examination of many teacher education programs and pre-K-12 classrooms and teacher education programs alike reveal that respect for diversity is typically superficial and not supported by practices, instruction, curriculum, policies, and teacher dispositions (Boutte, 1999, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994/2009). Like promising efforts in schools, teacher education programs need to be systemic as well. School–university collaborations have great potential for providing viable solutions toward the transformation of urban schools. Planning well-thought-out field experiences for preservice teachers (coupled with adequate information, strategies, and understandings of individual and structural inequities) is essential for helping prospective teachers learn to negotiate and succeed in urban classrooms. Yet too many teacher education programs do not provide experiences in urban settings or do not provide preservice teachers with adequate preparation and scaffolding for such practice (Bakari, 2003; Kidd, 2008). Some educators advocate for mandates which require teacher educators themselves to have successful teaching experiences in urban public schools (Picower, 2009). Likewise, university supervisors who are themselves comfortable and effective in urban settings and who also see the goal of antiracism development as a part of their job response play important roles in this equation (Picower, 2009). Another critical piece in teacher education programs is inclusion of readings which canvass the educational literature on teaching urban youth.

Earlier, I queried, “Can we envision teaching in urban schools as exhilarating and rewarding versus dreadful and foreboding?” I believe it is possible. At my institution, we have transformed the ECE program—the largest preservice education program in the College of Education (serving nearly 500 students)—such that it systematically addresses equity issues. Holding ourselves complicit in the continual miserable outcomes witnessed in urban schools, a group of eight faculty members (a subset of the larger ECE faculty group) decided to vigorously focus on students and schools whose needs were not being met under current conditions. We also were conscious of the reality that many undergraduate and graduate education majors finish teacher education programs with limited and distorted understandings about inequities and cultural diversity (Watson et al., 2006).

Eliciting preservice teachers who were interested in teaching urban students, we were able to start with an urban cohort or 50 preservice teachers. We carefully mapped out field experiences—including sustained and authentic experiences with urban families and communities, readings, and a system of ongoing support and purposeful mediation on issues of equity. Many of the preservice teachers were excited and propelled to be part of the cohort because their mothers were teachers who had exasperatedly explained that school demographics had changed and they (preservice teachers) needed to be prepared for them. Many of their mothers admitted that they wished that they had been better prepared. These revelations from their mothers which conveyed that their (mothers) teacher preparation had not adequately prepared them seemed to serve as an impetus for the preservice teachers’ interest in the urban cohort as the reality is that most new teachers will end up in schools with CLD student populations because rapidly changing demographics increase the likelihood that many more schools will be composed of similar populations.

On the front end or the urban cohort, we told the preservice teachers that we would address difficult issues of race and social class in all of our courses. Two comments from the first cohort convey their initial thoughts about the importance of the experience:

I chose to sign up for this cohort because facing a diverse classroom was the one thing that concerned me the most as a prospective teacher! I wanted to make sure that I was adequately prepared for this challenge! I tried every day over the summer to snag a spot in this section, and I’m glad I did. Embracing social justice is something that many do not understand, or want to understand. I want to be prepared to work in any kind of school with all different children . . . I want to be able to reach all children . . . This cohort has already helped shape me into the teacher I want to be, and I know that there is so much to be learned. (Preservice teacher, fall 2009, used with permission)

I chose the Urban Cohort Strand for several reasons. I have grown up in a lower-middle-class family. Through my early childhood and middle school years, I grew up down the street from a largely African American population . . . I have a close friend who became my friend as I spent time thinking I was helping her. In turn, I have gained so much from her friendship and life and, really, she has helped me. I guess what I am trying to say is that somehow in my “whiteness” in my past, I thought maybe I can help to rescue someone from their poverty or circumstances. (Preservice teacher, fall 2009, used with permission)

Unlike most of the graduates from the larger ECE program, preservice teachers who were part of the initial cohort eagerly looked for urban schools for their first teaching position. One reported turning down a position because when she mentioned CRP during her interview, she was told that the district only “teaches the standards.” Obviously, we worry that our optimistic preservice teachers will lose their enthusiasm over time or get sucked into the fray of urban bashing. We are still working on developing ongoing, substantive support to the new teachers from the urban cohorts.

After the first cohort graduated, at the request of the remainder of the ECE faculty, we transformed the entire ECE program to intentionally address equity issues. Presently, in the 2nd year, we are a work in progress eagerly waiting to see the impact of our program on teacher retention in urban schools and on P-3 student outcomes. In the meantime, the ECE faculty is engaged in ongoing professional development. We have also implemented a required foundational course on culturally relevant pedagogy that is offered during the sophomore year a semester before the first methods course. We have transformed our methods courses as well. For instance, for the ECE mathematics methods course, we include a focus on ethnomathematics and culturally relevant math. Our language and literacy courses also center issues of culture and race. All incoming candidates read three foundational pieces during the summer before they take their first methods courses: The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Students (1994/2009); A New Diverse Majority: Students of Color in the South’s Public Schools (Suitts, 2010), Lessons Learned: New Teachers Talk About Their Jobs, Challenges, and Long-Range Plans (2008), and the state’s report cards. These readings are integrated into assignments for their fall methods courses and have been useful in providing preservice teachers with sociopolitical awareness of the education landscape and a foundational knowledge base on CRP.

Threaded throughout the program are the three dimensions of CRP. It was no small accomplishment to witness the majority White preservice teachers who had been reared with a Southern conservative upbringing³ transform and become advocates for CLD students. At this point, at least, they view teaching urban students as exhilarating. They seem to understand why colorblindness is not desirable and openly discuss issues of race, including painful reflections from their prior hypersegregated lives. Reporting snippets of the program here sounds like a fairy tale. We have experienced mostly plateaus, but some challenges as well. For example, one school district felt as if some of the urban neighborhoods and homes were unsafe and did not want to approve a project which required preservice teachers to visit the families and communities. Such conflicts are expected and can be resolved. To proactively address this, we entered into dialogue with the district and offered dialogic professional development (a course on critical multicultural education) to share with all supervising teachers the foundation of what we do.

To defy the accepted norm of school failure in urban schools, teacher education programs cannot continue to follow conventional programs, graduating preservice/in-service teachers who are at best ill equipped and at worst damaging to urban youth (Picower, 2009). Can our enthusiasm, passion, and commitment to work with urban schools be sustained, multiplied, and re-created and improved in other settings? I think that it can and I believe that it should be an ethical priority for educators.

Why Teaching in Urban Setting Is an Ethical Priority for ECE and Elementary Teachers

As educators, if we are unwilling to accept the racial and social class inequalities in schools and society, then we must confront the problems facing urban schools through informed action (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009). As educators, we are cultural workers; therefore, addressing this issue is an ethical and moral imperative (Boutte, 2000). While educators find that discussing underlying issues faced by urban schools like racism is often difficult, as professionals we must recognize that children of color experience racism and racial hostility on a daily basis in schools and society. So on behalf of CLD children who experience racism daily and White children who are also damaged in the process (Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, 2006), we as professionals can endure the temporary discomfort that we experience in the process of learning to effectively teach urban youth. Ethically, ECE professionals can be guided by the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC) code of conduct:

Above all, we shall not harm children. We shall not participate in practices that are disrespectful, degrading, dangerous, exploitative, intimidating, emotionally damaging, or physically harmful to children. This principle has precedence over all others in this Code. (NAEYC, 2005)

The translation and deeper interpretations of this principle often gets lost in practice because educators tend to view discrimination in terms of intentional and overt actions or find it easier to discuss racism as a theoretical issue (Boutte et al., 2011). More insidious are the daily instances of routine curricular and instructional practices that harm children from all walks of life (albeit unintentional). It should be glaringly obvious that far too many students in urban schools are being harmed and will not meet their fullest potentials.

As few teachers intentionally harm children or view their actions (omission or commission) as harmful, typical acts of discrimination do not register on the “ethics radar.” Yet, not teaching about racism as an oppressive process and system that hurts people of color and Whites threatens the full humanity of all and violates the professional code of ethics. By not talking about racism, it will be impossible to acknowledge and avail practices which contribute to the state of affairs faced by urban schools. Hence, it is essential for the majority White teaching profession to learn to move beyond their racial comfort zones. We have a responsibility to recognize the influence of racism on themselves and their students and how to counteract it (Tenorio, 2007, 2008, 2009).

As ECE and elementary educators, we must continuously ask ourselves:

What do we need to rethink and/or do differently to construct more equitable lives for urban youth?

How can we capitalize on the sense of agency and possibility that young children possess before they become jaded about schools being the gateway to success?

Two of my favorite images that contrast the negative imagery of urban schools are artwork. The first one is a print called “Grandma’s Mirror” (by Donald Zolan) which depicts a young, African American female looking into a cheval mirror and showing her obvious pleasure with her image with a beaming smile. The second image is of the young male on the cover of the Ladson-Billings’ (1994/2009) book, The Dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. Both of these are hopeful images which make me smile each time I look at them. They capture the essence of what is possible among CLD children. Sadly, I constantly witness the cumulative, subtle changes in the hope and belief in schools that CLD children experience. My own children and the children of family and friends frequently undergo a metamorphosis from hope to skepticism (at best) regarding their educational experiences. These realities impel me to continue looking for possibilities that reject current educational trends.

Implications

Is it possible for ECE and elementary educators to lead the way in transforming urban education? Not suggesting that the process will be simple or that there are any hard-and-fast rules, I think so. I recall the moment in time in the 1980s when the NAEYC successfully transformed the ECE field from an increasingly academic focus for young children to focus on a new construct—“developmentally appropriate practice” (DAP). While my intent is not to support DAP (as it is problematic in its failure to address structural inequities; Swadener & Cannella, 2007), my point is that NAEYC accomplished the colossal task and educational coup of changing the focus on young children in schools and child care settings. With an impressive level of political savvy, pomp, vigor, and focus, NAEYC was able to amass wide support to leverage, advance, and institutionalize a movement which transformed the field. With this impetus and in a flurry (seemingly overnight), DAP became commonplace in educational circles. Today, virtually every school and educational policymaker are aware of the term and its companion term, “best practices,” which many critical scholars detest and reject. “DAP,” in fact, now dominants the field. Although the DAP effort initially focused on child care centers, it filtered up into ECE settings (P-3) in public schools. In schools across the nation, attempts are still being made to address DAP.

Politically, as the largest ECE professional organization in the United States, NAEYC’s tentacles are far reaching. So it seems feasible to me that the same grassroots process that NAEYC used could be instructive to educators wishing to transform urban schools. Working in NAEYC’s favor was that the majority White female membership readily bought in to the idea that young children needed to be protected. Yet contrasting the DAP movement with the pervasive deficit backdrop and narrative on urban youth who are often viewed as the villains (instead of as children who need to be protected and nurtured; Ladson-Billings, 2011), the realization that urban school reform is sociopolitically different becomes apparent. Hence, the critical race concept of interest convergence (Bell, 1992; Milner, 2008a) becomes central in thinking about how we can begin to substantively address issues of inequity in schools. Milner (2008a) notes that when the interests of urban youth are in opposition to or at odds with those in power, it is difficult to expose racism and to pursue equity. As noted by Milner (2008a), many Whites in power (this includes educators) theoretically support fighting against oppression as long as it suits their self-interests and does not require them to alter their own privileges and practices. So the real challenge will be finding ways to garner a deep support for children of color and children of poverty in urban schools whom White educators (and educators of color who are assimilated into mainstream culture) do not view as needing to be protected.

Collaborative efforts are needed like the one responsible for writing the policy report, A Call to Action (National Collaborative on Diversity, 2004), which resulted from a national summit of 41 of the nations’ leading education and advocacy organizations, foundations, and universities (e.g., the National Education Association [NEA], Educational Testing Services [ETS], the National Association for Multicultural Education [NAME], Carnegie and Ford Foundations, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, American Indian Higher Education Consortium, National Urban League). However, the effort must go beyond yet another White paper or academic exercise to become a living entity which results in focused, thoughtful, and persistent transformations in urban settings. There are already enough examples of what works in urban schools and have been for some time (Edmonds, 1979), but what is needed are pointed actions in place at several levels (e.g., professional organizations, universities, schools, adequately funded legislation) that goes beyond rhetoric and isolated efforts.

In sum, the “urban” problem must be collectively addressed on many fronts and there is not one solution. At the grassroots level, elementary schools and their feeder schools need to enter into ongoing conversations and actions. Educators can also join related efforts by the National Urban League, Children’s Defense Fund, and professional organizations who are addressing this issue. Educators must make our presence and demands known in universities, schools, board meetings, and legislative sessions on behalf of urban children. Letter-writing campaigns and use of social networks which engage the community, parents, and policy makers will also call attention to the needs of urban children and schools. Other simultaneous possibilities include working with community and faith-based programs which focus on educational and social assistance for CLD children. For the most part, these and other groups such as fraternities and sororities are underutilized in the process of implementing informed and sustainable tutoring programs with urban youth to ensure that they are learning at and above grade level. As educators, we need more people to stop remaining silent and inactive on the sidelines and to join in efforts to reform urban schools.

In the meantime, large-scale, impact data on the efficacy of equity methodologies or academic and social outcomes are needed. Research and programmatic efforts can address four dimensions of equity (Kahle, 1994) by examining questions of the following nature.

Equity in access: Who studies what? (e.g., Do students of color and students of poverty have access to high-level courses and instructional practices?) What role do curriculum and instruction, parental and community involvement, and structural barriers (e.g., racism, classism) play in the achievement of urban students? Do students of color and students of poverty have access to highly trained and successful educators?

Equity in education: What are the critical educational concerns regarding the education of urban youth? What fundamental changes are needed to address the educational issues and problems faced by student of color? What are best practices for urban students? Are urban students of poverty engaged in curriculum, materials, and instruction needed for optimal education? How is culturally relevant pedagogy implemented in different settings (e.g., grade levels, content areas, geographic locations)?

Equity in outcomes: What is the impact of culturally relevant pedagogy on student outcomes? Why have traditional educational systems been unable to effectively teach students of color and students of poverty? Are there alternative programs that are more effective educating urban students? How do the educational outcomes of students of color and students of poverty affect their communities and life experiences?

Equity in resources: Do students of color and students of poverty have optimal and equal facilities, resources, and other types of support? What are the resources needed for students of color and students of poverty to obtain an equitable education?

Conclusion

As poignantly noted by Edmonds (1979) more than three decades ago,

We can, whenever and wherever we choose, successfully teach all children whose schooling is of interest to us; we already know more than we need to do that; and whether or not we do it must finally depend on how we feel about the fact that we haven’t so far. (p. 23)

With the critical mass of scholars who are committed to addressing this expansive issue (e.g., King, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1999; Milner, 2010; Noguera, 2001), I am fueled by a vision in which urban schools can serve as a model for other geologic types of schools. In this space, we would intensify efforts of addressing the racism that contributes to low and poor performance in urban schools. This will require sweeping structural changes in current organizational practices and policies that facilitate differential academic and social outcomes for children of color and White students (Ladson-Billings, 1999). This is a daunting task since structural mechanisms through which racial inequalities are reproduced tend to be subtle and complex—often disguised by stated discourse directed toward increasing the achievement of CLD students (Noguera, 2001). Nevertheless, keeping the distant and near-past racial accomplishments (e.g., abolition of slavery, the Civil Rights era) in view, I remain cautiously hopeful that positive changes in urban schools are imminent. What is needed is ongoing saturation of a myriad of examples of successful urban schools. Once these prototypes become the norm, unsuccessful urban schools, while still existing, will become occasional anomalies. This vision is based on my belief in educators, and importantly, the potential of urban youth.

Emphasis on teacher quality must correspond with a schoolwide focus if it is to bring about systemic and sustainable changes. Importantly, high teacher turnover rates in urban schools (Darling-Hammond, 2000) must be drastically reduced. One factor in these high turnover rates is that many teachers are not fully prepared to teach in urban settings. Few have had sustained coursework and experiences in successful urban schools. In addition, the constant flow of new programs that are offered with little support and or evaluation of their effectiveness contribute to teachers’ frustration in schools (Darling-Hammond, 2000). To make the teaching at urban schools rewarding, professional development efforts and teacher education programs should systematically focus on demonstrating that “urban” and “deficit” are not synonymous (Milner, 2008b; Picower, 2009). This requires exposing educators to successful models which includes ongoing practice in high-quality urban settings and having ongoing opportunities to examine the dispositions and assumptions held by preservice/in-service teachers in a critical, yet supportive manner. The larger goal is to assist educators in dispelling deficit myths about urban students, learning to challenge them to excel, and providing academically rigorous curricula and instruction (Ladson-Billings, 2002; Milner, 2008b). Throughout the process, educators have to remain open to learning about and from urban youth. I close with an anecdote often shared by Asa Hilliard which intimates that if we focus our energies, we can transform urban schools:

Now and then we hear these wonderful stories about the little old lady who weighs no more than 135 pounds who finds that a large truck has fallen off a jack and is crushing her husband to death. With what appears to be miraculous strength, she moves in and actually lifts the truck, enabling the husband to be rescued. Apparently, she always had the strength; all that was needed was to focus the energies in a determined effort to succeed. (Hilliard, 2002)

Although change takes time and has uneven ebbs and flows, the status of urban schooling has been at an impasse for the past few decades. A key problem continues to be the lack of will and concerted focus. In the final analysis, if we are able to transform urban schools into vibrant learning environments, both educators and students will view these settings as rewarding and exhilarating.

Footnotes

Appendix

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Boutte

(1999). Multicultural issues: Raising consciousness. Atlanta, GA: Wadsworth.

Boutte

Kelly-Jackson

Johnson

G. L.

(2010). Culturally relevant teaching in science classrooms: Addressing academic achievement, cultural competence, and critical consciousness. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 12(2), 1-19.

Boutte

G. S.

(2000). Multiculturalism: Moral and educational implications. Dimensions of Early Childhood Education, 28(3), 9-16.

Boutte

G. S.

(2002). Resounding voices: School experiences of people from diverse ethnic backgrounds. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Boutte

G. S.

(2005, August 22). Believing in possibilities: Making culture central to learning. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) Briefs, 26(10), 5, 7.

Boutte

G. S.

(2008). Beyond the illusion of diversity: How early childhood teachers can promote social justice. Social Studies, 99(4), 165-173.

Boutte

G. S.

Hill

(2006). African American communities: Implications for educators. New Educator, 2, 311-329.

Boutte

G. S.

Hopkins

Waklatsi

(2008). Perspectives, voices, and worldviews in frequently read children’s books. Early Education and Development, 19(6), 1-22.

Boutte

G. S.

Lopez-Robertson

Costello

(2011). Moving beyond colorblindness in early childhood classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10643-011-0457-x10.1007/s10643-011-0457-x

10.

Bakari

(2003). Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward teaching African American students: Contemporary research. Urban Education, 38, 640-654.

11.

Bell

(1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. New York, NY: Basic Books.

12.

Berry

R. Q.

III . (2008). Access to upper-level mathematics: The stories of successful African American middle school boys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 464-488.

13.

Brown

D. F.

(2003). Urban teachers’ use of culturally responsive management strategies. Theory Into Practice, 42, 277-284.

14.

Buendia

(2011). Reconsidering the urban in urban education: Interdisciplinary conversations. Urban Review, 43, 1-21.

15.

Christensen

(2007). Unlearning the myths that bind us: Critiquing cartoons and society. Rethinking Schools, 1, 3-9.

16.

Chung

(2011). An analysis of urban schools. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Retrieved from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/rosman.356/urban_education_

17.

Cowhey

(2006). Black ants and Buddhists: Thinking critically and teaching differently in the primary grades. Portland, MN: Sternhouse.

18.

Darling-Hammond

(2000). New standards and old inequalities: School reform and the education of African American students. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 263-287.

19.

Derman-Sparks

Edwards

(2010). Anti-bias education for young children and ourselves. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

20.

Derman-Sparks

Ramsey

P. G.

(2006). What if all the kids are White? Anti-bias multicultural education and young children and families. New York, NY: Teachers College Record.

21.

Dubois

W. E. B.

(1989). The souls of Black folk. New York, NY: Bantam. (Original work published 1903)

22.

Earick

(2008). Racially equitable teaching: Beyond the whiteness of professional development for early childhood educators. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

23.

Edmonds

(1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15-27.

24.

Education Trust. (2011). Success stories: Dispelling the myth. Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org/dc/resources/success-stories

25.

Grigg

Donahue

Dion

(2007). The nation’s report card: 12th-grade reading and mathematics 2005 (NCES 2007-468). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office/U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

26.

Heath

S. B.

(1992). Ways with words. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1982)

27.

Hilliard

A. G.

III . (2002). Cultural pluralism in education. Retrieved from http://education.jhu.edu/newhorizons/future/creating_the_future/crfut_hilliard.cfm

28.

Hilliard

A. G.

III . (1991). Do we have the will to educate all children? Educational Leadership, 49(1), 31-36.

29.

Jackson

Boutte

(2009). Liberation literature: Positive cultural messages in children’s and adolescent literature at freedom schools. Language Arts, 87(2), 108-116.

30.

Kahle

J. B.

(1994). Ohio’s statewide systemic initiative: Lessons from the trenches. Building the system: Making science education work. Paper presented at the National Science Foundational National Invitational Conference, Washington, DC.

31.

Kaiser

(2011). Beginning teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the first through third waves of the 2007-08 Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (NCES 2011-318). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

32.

Kidd

J. K.

Sanchez

S. Y.

Thorp

E. K.

(2008). Defining moments: Developing culturally responsive dispositions and teaching practices in early childhood preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 316-329.

33.

King

J. E.

(2005). Black education: A transformative research and action agenda for the new century. New York, NY: Routledge.

34.

King

J. E.

(1994). The purpose of schooling for African American children. In Hollins

E. R.

King

J. E.

Hayman

W. C.

(Eds.), Teaching diverse populations/formulating a knowledge base (pp. 25-56). New York, NY: SUNY Press.

35.

Ladson-Billings

(1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24, 211-247.

36.

Ladson-Billings

(2002). I ain’t writin’ nuttin: Permissions to fail and demands to succeed in urban classrooms. In Delpit

(Ed.), Skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom (pp. 107-120). New York, NY: The New Press.

37.

Ladson-Billings

(2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. (Original work published 1994)

38.

Ladson-Billings

(2011): Boyz to men? Teaching to restore Black boys’ childhood. Race Ethnicity and Education, 14(1), 7-15.

39.

Lee

C. D.

(2008). The centrality of culture to the scientific study of learning and development: How an ecological framework in education research facilitates civic responsibility. Educational Researcher, 37, 267-279.

40.

Lewis

James

Hancock

Hill-Jackson

(2008). Framing African American students’ success and failure in urban settings: A typology for change. Urban Education, 43(2), 127-153.

41.

MacNaughton

Williams

(2009). Techniques for teaching young children: Choices for theory and practice (3rd ed.). French Forest: Pearson Education Australia.

42.

Martin

D. B.

(2007). Beyond missionaries or cannibals: Who should teach mathematics to African American children? High School Journal, 91(1), 6-28.

43.

Milner

H. R.

(2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom. Urban Review, 43, 66-89.

44.

Milner

H. R.

(2008a). Critical race theory and interest convergence as analytic tools in teacher education policies and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 332-346.

45.

Milner

H. R.

(2008b). Disrupting deficit notions of difference: Counter-narratives of teachers and community in urban education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1573-1598.

46.

Milner

H. R.

(2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding opportunity gaps, diversity and teaching in today’s classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

47.

Moll

(2001). The diversity of schooling: A cultural-historical approach. In The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students (pp. 29-47). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

48.

Morris

J. E.

(2004). Can anything good come from Nazareth? Race, class, and African-American schooling and community in the urban South and Midwest. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 69-112.

49.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2005). Code of ethical conduct and statement of commitment. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/ethical_conduct

50.

National Collaborative on Diversity in the Teaching Force. (2004). Assessment of diversity in America’s teaching force: A call to action. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

51.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality and Public Agenda. (2008). Lessons learned: New teachers talk about their jobs, challenges, and long-range plans. Retrieved from http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/lessons_learned_3.pdf

52.

Nieto

(2003). What keeps teachers going? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

53.

Noguera

P. A.

(2001). Racial politics and the elusive quest for excellence and equity in education. Education and Urban Society, 34, 18-41.

54.

Orellana

M. F.

D’Warte

(2010). Recognizing different kinds of “head starts.” Educational Researcher, 39, 295-300.

55.

Osher

Fleischman

(2005). Positive culture in urban schools. Educational Leadership, 62(6), 84-85.

56.

Pelo

(2008). Rethinking early childhood education. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

57.

Perry

(2003). Up from the parched earth: Toward a theory of African American achievement. In Perry

Steele

Hilliard

A. G.

III (Eds.), Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting high achievement among African-American students (pp. 1-10). Boston, MA: Beacon.

58.

Perry

Steele

Hilliard

III . (2003). Young, gifted, and Black: Promoting high achievement among African-American students. Boston, MA: Beacon.

59.

Peterson

(2007). Coping with TV: Some lesson ideas. Rethinking Schools, 1, 93-94.

60.

Picower

(2009). The unexamined Whiteness of teaching: How White teachers maintain and enact dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12, 197-215.

61.

Quartz

K. H.

& the TEP Research Group. (2003). “Too angry to leave”: Supporting new teachers’ commitment to transform urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 99-111.

62.

Segura-Mora

(2008). What color is beautiful? In Pelo

(Ed.), Rethinking early childhood education (pp. 3-6). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

63.

Suitts

(2010). A new diverse majority: Students of color in the South’s public schools. Atlanta, GA: Southeastern Education Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.southerneducation.org/pdf/New%20Diverse%20Majority.pdf

64.

Swadener

B. B.

Cannella

(2007). Reconceptualizing early childhood education in North America: A brief introduction. Interaction, 20(4), 25-26. Retrieved from www.cyc.uvic.ca/…/07.Swadener_Cannella_Reconceptualizing_Interaction…

65.

Tenorio

(2009). Brown kids can’t be in our club. In Au

(Ed.), Rethinking multicultural education: Teaching for racial and cultural justice. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

66.

Tenorio

(2007). Race and respect among young children. Rethinking Schools, 1, 20-24.

67.

Tenorio

(2008). Raising issues of race with young children. In Pelo

(Ed.), Rethinking early childhood education (pp. 17-21). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

68.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. (2005, September). Current Population Survey (CPS), October Supplement, 1972 and 2004 [previously unpublished tabulation]. Retrieved January 3, 2012: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006072.pdf

69.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007-08a). Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2007-08a. Common Core of Data. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/tables/a.1.a.-2.asp?refer=urban

70.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007-08b). Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey, 2007-08b. Table B.1.b.-1. Number and percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary students, by race/ethnicity and locale: 2007-08. Common Core of Data. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/tables/b.1.b.-1.asp?refer=urban

71.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007-08c). Public School Teacher Data File, 2007-08c. Schools and Staffing Survey. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009324_t1s_02.asp

72.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007-08d). Public School Teacher Data File, 2007-08d. Schools and Staffing Survey. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_2009324_t1s_03.asp

73.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007-08e). Public Teacher Questionnaire, 2007-08e. Schools and Staffing Survey. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/tables/c.1.a.-2.asp?refer=urban

74.

Van Ausdale

Feagin

(2001). The first r: How children learn race and racism. London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield.

75.

Volk

Long

(2005). Challenging myths of the deficit perspective: Honoring children’s literacy resources. Young Children, 60(6), 12-19.

76.

Watson

Charner-Laird

Kirkpatrick

C. L.

Szczesiul

S. A.

Gordon

P. J.

(2006). Effective teaching/effective urban teaching: Grappling with definitions, grappling with difference. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 395-409.